Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Amendments submitted on 6/21/26 include amendments to the claims. Claims 1-4, 6-8 are pending. Claims 1-4, 6-8 have been amended. Claim 5 has been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/21/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments that none of the references teach that the feed conduct and the filter are movable relative to the extraction end between a first position spaced from said extraction end to unblock said extraction end relative to passage of the granular material and to a second position adjacent said extraction end to close said extraction end relative to passage of the granular material: Shirai et al. does not teach that the feed conduct and the filter are movable relative to the extraction end between a first position spaced from said extraction end to unblock said extraction end relative to passage of the granular material and to a second position adjacent said extraction end to close said extraction end relative to passage of the granular material. However, in the modified system by Shirai et al. and Kittrick et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the feed conduct and filter may be either attached (where it would be capable of blocking granular material) to or detached from the extraction end depending on the need to provide the filtration and feed fluid for the particular application. Furthermore, it has been determined that making separable is an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). Moreover, regarding the blocking/unblocking of the passage of granular material, it has been determined that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim rejections under 35 USC 112 have been withdrawn based on the amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirai et al. (JP2009262036A) in view of Kittrick et al. (US20100230329).
Regarding claims 1-3, 6, Shirai et al. teaches a device capable of carrying out a method for washing/cleaning granular material from slag as well as bottom/boiler ash from a thermal waste treatment as well as mineral residue and recycling material (see abstract, page 1 of the translation), comprising a cleaning channel 5 and at least one ultrasound generator 6 capable of subjecting the cleaning channel 5 and process liquid therein and granular material therein to ultra sound (see page 3 of the translation, figures 1-2), wherein the cleaning channel 5 extends upright or vertically in its longitudinal extension from an upper feeding end (see end of 5 adjacent to 23, as shown in figure 1) to a lower extraction end (see end of 5 adjacent to 24, as shown in figure 1), that the ultrasound generator is located along the longitudinal extension of the cleaning channel 5; a collection device 8 capable of holding the granular material is provided downstream the extraction end (see figure 1 and page 3 of the translation) (reads on claim 6). Shirai et al. does not explicitly teach a plurality of ultrasound generators. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the number of ultrasound generators may be increased so as to increase the ultrasonic cleaning capacity of the system. Furthermore, it has been determined that the duplication of parts constitutes an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Shirai et al. does not teach a filter provided upstream the feed conduct. Kittrick et al. teaches a filter (see filtration unit) provided upstream the feed conduct 33 for the process liquid, allowing for the removal of particulates (reads on a mesh width smaller than the smallest diameter of the granular particles) and recycling and reuse of the process liquid (see paragraphs [0023] and figure 2). Since both Shirai et al. and Kittrick et al. teach ultrasonic cleaning systems it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that a filter may be provided upstream of the feed conduct in the modified system by Shirai et al. and Kittrick et al. so as to allow for the removal of particulates recycling and reuse of process liquid, as shown to be known and conventional by Kittrick et al. Shirai et al. does not teach a plurality of ultrasound generators or that the extraction end is connected to a feed conduct for process liquid. Kittrick et al. teaches an ultrasonic cleaning system (see abstract) whereby the cross section of the cleaning channel 14/16/18 is rectangular in shape (see paragraph [0025]) and has at least two flat sides extending along the flow direction and parallel to each other and that a plurality of ultrasound generators 20 are located along the flat sides (see paragraph [0025], figures 2, 4, 6) (reads on claim 2), such that the sound emission surfaces of the ultrasound generators 20 constitute flat sides of the cleaning channel 14/16/18 (see paragraph [0025], figures 2, 4, 6) (reads on claim 3); and that the extraction end (see bottom end of 14/16/18 attached to 33, as shown in figure 1) is connected to a feed conduct 33 for process liquid, such that the delivered process liquid flows from the lower extraction end to the upper feeding end (see top end of 14/16/18 attached to 34, as shown in figure 1) of the cleaning channel 14/16/18 and that the upper feeding end is connected to an overflow 34 in order to extract process liquid escaping from the cleaning channel 14/16/18; thereby allowing for an improved cleaning effect (see figure 1, paragraph [0023]). Since both Shirai et al. and Kittrick et al. both teach ultrasonic cleaning systems it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that a plurality of ultrasound generators, a feed conduct and overflow may be included in the system by Shirai et al. so as to allow for an improved cleaning effect, as shown to be known and conventional by Kittrick et al. Shirai et al. does not teach that the feed conduct and the filter are movable relative to the extraction end between a first position spaced from said extraction end to unblock said extraction end relative to passage of the granular material and to a second position adjacent said extraction end to close said extraction end relative to passage of the granular material. However, in the modified system by Shirai et al. and Kittrick et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the feed conduct and filter may be either attached (where it would be capable of blocking granular material) to or detached from the extraction end depending on the need to provide the filtration and feed fluid for the particular application. Furthermore, it has been determined that making separable is an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). Moreover, regarding the blocking/unblocking of the passage of granular material, it has been determined that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
Regarding claim 4, Shirai et al. and Kittrick et al. together teach the limitations of claim 2. Shirai et al. also teaches in page 3 of the translation and figure 2 a flat side 23/24 is movable with the ultrasound generator 6 back and forth towards the opposite flat side 23/24 (e.g. during vibration due to operation of the ultrasound generator) and that the narrow sides (see vertical wall portions of 5 that are connected to 23 and 24, as shown in figure 2) of the cleaning channel 5 are connected upright to the flat sides 23, 24 and are constituted by seals (the side walls are capable of providing a sealing effect by blocking fluid passage therethrough).
Regarding claim 7, Shirai et al. and Kittrick et al. together teach the limitations of claim 1. Shirai et al. also teaches that the cleaning channel 5 is capable of being closed upstream of the extraction end by means of a valve (see e.g. closure through sealable dampers 23).
Regarding claim 8, Shirai et al. and Kittrick et al. together teach the limitations of claim 1. Shirai et al. does not teach an inspection glass and/or a detection means. Kittrick et al. teaches a detection means 56 provided at a lower portion of the cleaning channel 14/16/18 and upstream the extraction end and at an upper portion of the cleaning channel 14/16/18 and downstream the feeding end (see paragraph [0031], positioning of multiple detectors 56 longitudinally spaced apart along the length of the cleaning channel 14/16/18) capable of detecting the presence or the arrival of a granular grain (see paragraph [0031], see e.g. the detection of increasing turbidity and progressively dirtier water, which reads on detection of the presence of granular grain) adjacent the extraction end or in the feeding end (see paragraph [0031], figures 3, 5). Since both Shirai et al. and Kittrick et al. teach ultrasound cleaning systems it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that detection means may be disposed between the cleaning channel and extraction and feeding ends so as to allow for the ability to detect the presence of dirt, as shown to be known and conventional by Kittrick et al.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TINSAE B AYALEW whose telephone number is (571)270-0256. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MICHAEL BARR can be reached at 571-272-1414. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TINSAE B AYALEW/EXAMINER, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights